Bernie Sanders

Gutfeld on Bernie’s comments about China

In an interview with The Hill, Democratic presidential candidate and avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said China had done more to address extreme poverty than any country in history. “What we have to say about China, in fairness to China and its leadership is, if I’m not mistaken, they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, OK. So they’ve done a lot of things for their people,” Sanders said. He’s right. According to the World Bank, the number of poor in China went from 880 million in 1981, to less than 10 million. But I wonder how they did that? Well, the Chinese “socialists” killed millions of poor people, so there’s that. Dead people aren’t poor. Just dead. They called that the “Great Leap Forward.” After that, they used a tool Bernie despises: capitalism. It was only the Chinese rigorously adopted free-market principles, private ownership and decentralization, that they transformed their economy from a house of horrors to something much more humane. The things that saved a billion lives in China are the things Bernie thinks harmed our country. The lesson is that those who scream about inequality embrace ideas that create more inequality. By replacing equal opportunity with equal outcomes, you end up with two classes: the poor and the powerful. Which happened in China. And it seems to be happening in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Baltimore, too. Of course, China went “whole Communist,” resulting in mass murder, religious persecution, forced abortion and famine. The number of dead in China under Mao has to be counted in the tens of millions. So yeah, praise is in order for China finally coming around to abandoning bad ideas. Maybe Bernie should do the same.

Yeah…  I wouldn’t hold my breath on that, Greg.  As usual, Greg Gutfeld nails it with his pithy wit.  Bernie is an unbelievable hypocrite.  He’s a millionaire with three mansions, who underpays his own staff…and that’s just for starters..  And, this all the while he’s preaching his socialist nonsense; how the rich need to pay their “fair share.”  Hey Bernie!  How about you sell one of your three mansions.  After all, you don’t “need” all three.  And, why don’t you donate the proceeds to the poor.  Lead by example!  Unreal…  And, let’s not forget that Bernie and his then fiancé had their honeymoon in Moscow…back when it was the Soviet Union.  Think about that…especially those of us who remember those days..  An American couple having their honeymoon in the Soviet Union.  Wow..  Bernie is someone who hates America, and how it was founded.   He hates capitalism, and yet has greatly benefited from it with his book deals and so on.  Remember that the next time you see angry, crazy Bernie talking about a “living wage” or some other similar socialist bs.

Greg Gutfeld: Sanders campaign staff wage complaints expose ‘socialist millionaire’ as ‘hypocrite’

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., routinely slams corporate executives and makes calls for wage hikes, a stance that comes across as hypocritical thanks to a new report, according to Greg Gutfeld. The self-described democratic socialist is reportedly taking heat from campaign staffers upset they are being paid “poverty wages” and not the $15 per hour that is a hallmark of the Sanders campaign, Gutfeld claimed Friday on “The Five.” “He is, just by existing, a hypocrite,” he said. “He’s a socialist millionaire with three homes. Wealth is good for him but not for others.” Sanders reportedly has a net worth of about $700,000, but has made more than $1 million annually in recent years. He and his wife Jane own a house in Burlington, Vt., he purchased a $575,000 lakefront property in the Green Mountain State in 2016, and the couple owns a 19th-century townhouse in the District of Columbia. On “The Five,” Gutfeld said it is important that Sanders, “appl[y] the damaging policies that he wants to do to Americans onto his staff.” “But why won’t he?” he asked. “Because he knows when you raise wages… you have to reduce the number of jobs because ‘the pie’ doesn’t grow. “The purpose of the minimum wage is it’s the first rung on the employment ladder. The problem with the left is… they see the first rung as the last rung because they’re not economically competent.” In recent weeks, Sanders has called for a $15 per hour minimum wage on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and at campaign rallies in Rock Hill, S.C. and in Augusta, Ga. Adding to Gutfeld’s remarks, host Juan Williams claimed the wages Sanders staffers are making average out to $13 per hour. The staff is also unionized, Williams said.

Greg is definitely right..  Regardless of your personal politics, or party affiliation, Bernie is clearly a spectacular hypocrite.  But, then again, so are most socialist leaders.  They’ll want to impose their failed economic/political system on everyone, but themselves.  Socialism keeps people in mediocrity, except those at the very top who are millionaires (some even billionaires) with multiple mansions and so on.  And, that’s been true throughout history.  Bernie is just the most glaring, brazen example in American politics.  Kudos to Greg for calling out that self-righteous hypocrite on his bs.  For more, click on the text above.

Sanders confuses ‘revenue’ and ‘profit’ as he rails for unionization of video game industry

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders confused “revenue” and “profit” in supporting the efforts to unionize the video game industry. The U.S. senator from Vermont, who’s constantly trailing Vice President Joe Biden in the polls, made the embarrassing basic economics mistake on social media Tuesday. “The video game industry made $43 billion in revenue last year. The workers responsible for that profit deserve to collectively bargain as part of a union. I’m glad to see unions like @IATSE and the broader @GameWorkers movement organizing such workers,” Sanders tweeted. The democratic socialist appears to not differentiate between “profit” and “revenue” – the money company brings in before it deducts workers’ wages and other expenses needed to produce the product. This means that Sanders’ plea for workers to get a share of “that profit” was fulfilled as he was pointing out to revenue. While the video game industry indeed brought around $43 billion in revenue in the U.S. last year, or about $135 billion worldwide, the profit figure is multiple times lower than the revenue. This isn’t the first time Sanders appears to have confused revenue of a company with profit for making a political point. Earlier this month, Sanders crashed Walmart’s annual shareholders’ meeting, where he urged the shareholders to ensure living wages for the workers as “the American people are sick and tired of subsidizing the greed of some of the largest and most profitable corporations in this country.” While Walmart is indeed the company that brings the most revenue in the U.S., its profit put the company only as the 40th on the Fortune 500 list and is just 99th when ranked profit per employee thanks to its 2.3 million workforce.

Bernie is who he is; a socialist.  He had his honeymoon in Moscow, in the then-USSR.  The fact that he doesn’t understand basic economics shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with half a brain.

Carol Roth: Calling socialism ‘democratic’ is like putting lipstick on a pig

When asked in a recent townhall by a Harvard student whose family fled Soviet Russia why he embraced the same type of socialist policies that had failed there and worldwide, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did what he always does. He deflected. According to Sanders, he isn’t advocating for that kind of socialism. No, he has dressed his philosophy up with a fancy moniker called “democratic socialism.” It’s a phrase that many on the far left have embraced as they push anti-free market propaganda and policies that seek to concentrate more power within the hands of a few political elites. They can call it “democratic socialism,” but socialism is so awful and flawed that no modifier can make it palatable — garbage by any other name still stinks. In fact, adding “democratic” to socialism is basically the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. Socialism is a system set up for failure by design. The true definition of socialism is the government owning the means of production and having a few people — those aforementioned political elite- decide what’s in everyone else’s best interest. It stands in stark contrast to free markets, which give everyone individual choice and free choice to make those decisions for themselves. Supposing you had the smartest people around (which is not usually something associated with politicians) with perfect and trustworthy moral intent (also not something associated with politicians), the structure of having a small number of people decide how to allocate resources is still an impossible task. Even with the assistance of AI models or other technology, no group of people have the right incentives and knowledge to replicate the complex yet elegant work of the free market to efficiently and effectively allocate resources. With hundreds of thousands or even millions of products and services in the U.S., the task of allocating the right amount of resources and deciding how much of each good or service to create at any one time, who should create them, how they should be created, how they should reach potential consumers, pricing and other market factors is impossible for any group of planners. It’s why countries like India have seen famines during times where they had plenty of food in the country; they lacked the right incentives to get the product to the people who needed it. It’s also why pure socialism has failed every single time it has been tried with horrific consequences and isn’t known for amazing innovations, either. In his quest to soften socialism, Sanders has tweeted that “Democratic Socialism means democracy.” But, the “democracy” descriptor is no picnic either. Our founding fathers intentionally created a federal republic (or constitutional republic or whatever similar phrase you prefer) and not a democracy, because of democracy’s inherent flaws. As Ben Franklin so aptly described it, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Mob rule doesn’t make something a good, right or moral idea. Good intentions often lead to poor outcomes. Additionally, when the democratic label is invoked, it’s often a neon sign advertising that something is amiss. What we all know as “North Korea” brands itself as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (which also boldly claims on its website is where “all the people are completely liberated from exploitation and oppression”). Similarly, East Germany prior to German reunification was known as the German Democratic Republic. Though I can’t speak for Sanders, hopefully, the rest of us can all agree these are not exactly the types of regimes we want to be emulating. So, if throwing “democratic” in front of socialism given the other countries who have used that over time doesn’t scare you enough, the concept of any degree of socialism should. We have let too much of that central type of planning seep into our system. And, when Sanders tweets, “My definition of democratic socialism is creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on top,” what he is advocating for is exactly that type of control where “what is in everyone’s best interests” is decided by the handful of elite politicians that comprise our government. Our country was founded on the concept of individual rights, including property rights and freedom. The government’s job was to protect those rights and our freedoms; and that’s it. Over time, that has begun to erode. The government has not only infringed upon our rights but also exceeded their powers by becoming intermediaries in markets and redistributors of wealth. From education to health care to retirement planning, whether by cronyism, nationalization or regulation, more government intervention has taken hold. And, everywhere the government has done so, costs have gone up and quality has gone down. Because whether you have a full socialist system, a mixed system or a democratic socialist system, interference by government will always produce inferior outcomes than in a free market, in whole or in part. Movement towards free markets creates prosperity and movement towards socialism thwarts it. We must come together to reject socialism by any name — in whole or in part — and work to find advocates who will undertake the difficult task of taking away power, decisions and actions from the elites in government and returning it to the people and the markets where it rightly belongs. Sanders and his ilk are dead wrong and as history demonstrates, any socialism — democratic or otherwise — will be entirely at our own loss. No amount of lipstick can make that pig of socialism attractive.

Agreed 100%!!  Well said, Carol.  Carol Roth is the creator of the Future File legacy planning system, a “recovering” investment banker, host of “The Roth Effect” podcast and the New York Times bestselling author of “The Entrepreneur Equation.”  Please consider this your Read of the Day.  If you read anything today here at The Daily Buzz, then READ THIS!!…and then forward it on to all of your liberal/Democrat friends and family members.  Excellent!!!      🙂

Sander-nista? Archives show Bernie’s past praise of socialist revolutionaries

Bernie Sanders, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has long billed himself as a democratic socialist, citing the peaceful governments of Denmark and Sweden as his inspirations. But back in the 1980s, as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders often endorsed a different strain of leftist government – praising violent socialist revolutionaries as well as economic policies like forced land redistribution, according to a Fox News review of archived footage and documents. Asked about the comments today, Sanders’ campaign highlighted other aspects of the now-presidential candidate’s 1980s-era views, saying he was prescient to warn against U.S. intervention abroad. “Our foreign policy will focus on diplomacy, not endless war,” the campaign said in a statement. In the 1980s, Sanders spoke of socialist Nicaraguan revolutionaries known as Sandinistas so often that one local paper called it a “favorite Sanders topic.” The Sandinistas overthrew a dictator in the Central American nation in 1979, and then began to impose socialist policies. That sparked a rebellion from Nicaraguans who opposed socialism, who became known as “Contras.” Tens of thousands were killed in the fighting. The Soviet Union and Cuba sent weapons and economic support to the Sandinistas, while the U.S. led by President Ronald Reagan sent arms and funding to the Contras. The U.S. involvement appalled Sanders. As soon as he became mayor of Burlington in 1981, his pro-Sandinista views began to make headlines in local papers. The Burlington Free Press reported in 1981 on a speech Sanders gave that year, stating that Sanders “exhorted his audience ‘to take control of your own lives’ as the ‘struggling masses’ did in Chile, Cuba and Nicaragua.” In 1983, Mayor Sanders penned a letter to Reagan slamming U.S. foreign policy. “I am appalled that you are using taxpayers’s [sic] money to destroy the government of a small nation,” Sanders’ letter read, according to the Burlington Free Press in 1983. By 1984, Sanders got Burlington to create a “sister city” relationship with Puerto Cabezas, a Nicaraguan city. Sanders later wrote that Vermonters provided “a significant amount of material help” to the Nicaraguan city through the program. The next year, the Nicaraguan government invited Sanders to an expenses-paid trip to attend the first formal inauguration of their president, Sandinista revolutionary Daniel Ortega. Sanders accepted, recounting in his 1997 autobiography that “I was – believe it or not – the highest-ranking American official present”. Also present at Ortega’s inauguration were Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Vice President of the Soviet Union Vasili Kuznetsov, and Yugoslavian President Veselin Đuranović, according to a U.S. Army report done for the Library of Congress in 1993. Sanders has separately praised Cuba, with recently unearthed footage showing Sanders recalling his excitement surrounding the Cuban revolution in the 1950s. “I remember, for some reason or another, being very excited when [former Cuban dictator] Fidel Castro made the revolution in Cuba,” he said, while speaking at the University of Vermont in 1986. “I was a kid … and it just seemed right and appropriate that poor people were rising up against rather ugly rich people.” Sanders stated in a 1981 interview that he was not a supporter of the Soviet Union, which he called “authoritarian and totalitarian.” But Sanders also encouraged student exchange programs with the Soviet Union during the 1980s and spent his honeymoon there in 1988. While stopping short of full-scale Soviet-Cuban-style collectivization, the Sandinista government confiscated and redistributed many private farms and businesses in the early 1980s. Upon returning to Vermont from Ortega’s 1985 inauguration, Sanders praised Sandinista economic policies including land redistribution.

No, you are NOT reading The Onion..  And to think this raving socialist might actually win the DNC nomination should horrify every freedom-loving American.  What a lunatic!  For more, click on the text above.  Unreal..

Lifestyles of the rich and socialist: Bernie Sanders has 3 houses, makes millions

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., entered the 2020 presidential race this week promising to transform America with a left-wing vision of economic and environmental justice. But the self-described democratic socialist’s high-end income, multiple houses and fondness for air travel have already opened him up to criticism that his lifestyle doesn’t always match the rhetoric. Sanders has pitched himself as a grassroots economic populist, focusing on income inequality and higher taxes for the rich. “Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice,” he said. “Together you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revoution,” he said. “Now it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.” But Sanders has raised eyebrows over his spending and personal wealth. Notably, he owns three houses. In 2016, he bought a $575,000 four-bedroom lake-front home in his home state. This is in addition to a row house in Washington D.C., as well as a house in Burlington, Vermont. “The Bern will keep his home in Burlington and use the new camp seasonally,” Vermont’s Seven Day’s reported in 2016. The multiple homes, though, bring into question past statements — like when he asked in 2017: “How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can’t have it all.” Sanders has also earned more than $1 million annually in recent years, though he remains on the lower end of Senate Democrats in terms of net worth. VTDigger reported in May that he made more than $1 million in 2017 — $885,767 of which came from cash advances and royalties for his book, “Our Revolution” on his failed 2016 presidential bid. It’s the second time he made roughly that amount, making more than a million in 2016 also. Despite that, according to Forbes he has one of the lowest net worths among prospective presidential candidates, with an estimated net worth of approximately $700,000, according to Forbes. To compare with other Democrats, fellow left-wing firebrand Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has an estimated net worth of approximately $7.8 million. But conservatives have pointed to Sanders’ lifestyle as contradictory given his tax-the-rich mantras. “That’s why they are called limousine liberals,” Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist said on Fox Business Network’s “The Evening Edit” on Tuesday. “You have enough money. You can imagine spending other people’s money as well.” “His health care plan, he admits, costs $32 trillion. He wants an 8 percent across-the-board tax on peoples’ salaries, which is only $12 trillion—an 8 percent pay cut for everybody in order to pay for his health plan [and] it only pays for a third of it,” he said. “So you can imagine the endless number of tax increases and regulations that they are looking to put on.” But other parts of his lifestyle are also drawing scrutiny, specifically when compared to his calls to limit environmental pollution and also to redistribute the wealth of the “millionaires and billionaires.” In October, he spent nearly $300,000 on air travel so he could speak to audiences in nine battleground states before the November midterms. This from a candidate who has endorsed a Green New Deal that seeks to dramatically reduce (if not eliminate entirely) air travel. Sanders’ team reportedly purchased nearly $5,000 in carbon offsets to balance out the emissions produced from the travel, according to VTDigger. A carbon offset is a reduction in emissions to compensate for emissions elsewhere. The same day his campaign paid the jet company, Sanders called climate change a “planetary crisis” in a tweet. Since Sanders announced his presidential bid, he has received a fresh wave of criticism from conservatives, with commentator Charlie Kirk quipping: “For a committed socialist he sure seems to love living like a capitalist.” Other parts of his family dealings will likely see more scrutiny also. The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday zeroed in again on the controversy surrounding Bernie’s wife, Jane Sanders, and her time as president of Burlington College. The college closed in 2016, citing the enormous debt it accrued while Sanders was in charge — in particular when the college made a $10 million real-estate deal. Federal investigators looked into whether Jane Sanders committed bank fraud by inflating the amount of money pledged to donors by the school — but investigators purportedly closed the investigation and brought no charges.

Imagine that..  Its good to be the wife of a rich, hypocrite politician like ol’ Bernie.

Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for all’ bill estimated to cost $32.6T, new study says

The “Medicare for All” plan pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and endorsed by a host of Democratic congressional and presidential hopefuls would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a new study. The Vermont senator has avoided conducting his own cost analysis, and those supporting the plan have at times struggled to explain how they could pay for it. The study, released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, showed the plan would require historic tax increases. The hikes would allow the government to replace what employers and consumers currently pay for health care — delivering significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care that would drive up spending, according to the report. According to the report, the legislation’s federal health care commitments would reach approximately 10.7 of GDP by 2022, and rise to nearly 12.7 percent of GDP by 2031. But the study, conducted by senior research strategist Charles Blahous, said that those estimates were on the “conservative” side. Sanders’ plan builds on Medicare, the insurance program for seniors. The proposal would require all U.S. residents be covered with no copays and deductibles for medical services. The insurance industry would be regulated to play a minor role in the system. Sanders is far from the only liberal lawmaker pushing the program. 2020 hopefuls like Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., endorsed a “Medicare for all” program last year. Political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., in a recent upset primary and instantly became a prominent face of the democratic socialist movement, also is promoting a “Medicare for all” platform. “Enacting something like ‘Medicare for all’ would be a transformative change in the size of the federal government,” Blahous, who was a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush and a public trustee of Social Security and Medicare during the Obama administration, said. Blahous’ study also found that “a doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.”